New Test of J.Nordberg's 'Field Reversing Sphere' Experiment

This is a response to request by RJBeery in post #102 here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...from-a-crank&p=3057051&viewfull=1#post3057051
Concerning a highly controversial claim and apparent experimental confirmation shown in the YouTube vid here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9YHOl7OyfsY

A wager of $50 between him and myself was entered into over the course of entries #84-#87 in that thread, and further details ironed out as subsequently shown in the posts leading up to #102 there.
Basically, I maintain, based on validity of Ampere's law, no difference in magnetic field will be noticed if one substitutes the sphere with a length of straight wire. Subject to details laid out in above listed thread entries. RJBeery harbors sufficient doubt and agrees to experimentally test this according to already agreed upon protocols.

So now I look forward to a list of supplies being furnished.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Accepted in the spirit of seeking the truth through experimentation more so than expecting any ground-breaking new physical laws to be uncovered here. At worst, I'm out $100 and will have learned something. At best, I'm out nothing and we will have all learned something.

Here's a list of items purchased:

http://www.qcsupply.com/5-copper-ba...m_medium=cpc&gclid=CI3z2Py7rLYCFac7MgodMAsABQ
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002JLE5DG/ref=pe_309540_26725410_item
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007HSDJPQ/ref=pe_309540_26725410_item
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00070IPJG/ref=pe_309540_26725410_item

The concept being tested is whether or not the magnetic field surrounding the current-carrying conductive copper wire changes direction (from "right-hand rule" to "left-hand rule") as its flux area is increased. The flux area is increased by affixing a hollow copper sphere to the wire; we shall be looking for magnetic field activity in accordance with a "left-hand rule" surrounding the bottom half of the sphere corresponding to the increasing flux area (and of course a return to the "right-hand rule" on the top half of the sphere corresponding to the decreasing flux area).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well I have to hand to you in this respect - you know how to do things on the cheap. All looks acceptable except maybe you will find that charger lacks oomph - perhaps around 2-4 amps max? Suck it and see I guess. Do you have an ammeter to insert in series as suggested? And naturally support frame is to be non-ferrous.
Go to it!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll piece something together for the support frame, either wood or PVC pipe, whatever I have on-hand. Let's be realistic though: in order to artificially manufacture the results that Nordberg claims will occur one would have to go to an extraordinary amount of tweaking. I don't have the patience for something like that, and I also don't have the financial incentive that charlatans do (i.e. they ask for money for more research

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

(I do have an ammeter, btw)

 

Rest assured - there will be no offer for further research funds from your's truly.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This could be a delicate thing though - the more I study that charger, the punier it looks. I doubt it could even muster 1 amp. Time will tell. Must go.

 

I actually have access to arbitrarily powerful commercial battery chargers, I'm not too worried about it. Let's give it a few days for my equipment to arrive! :thumbsup:

 

Are you guys gonna measure the magnetic field strength with a Hall effect sensor? or something like that.

 

The field strength is not important, agreed? The direction of curling is all that needs to be measured in this case.

 

I had been a bit lazy in assuming Nordberg's experiment could be replicated with modest current levels. Go here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magcur.html#c2

Infinite straight wire results, which won't be much different from that pertaining reasonably close to wire in a largish loop, show that at 10cm ~ 4" radially from wire, around 25 amps needed just to equal average value of earth's magnetic field! Bit of a surprise. Can you cancel that order for charger - I assume specs will show no more than around 1 amp rating. If you wish to press ahead and use one of those 'industrial strength' strength chargers, then:

One further item will likely be needed. Bare circuit as is, external to charger, will likely have a resistance of a small fraction of an ohm. Relying on the charger having sufficient internal resistance to bring the circuit current down to a safe range of say 25 amps is risky and chances are there would be continual tripping out assuming current overload circuitry is integrated into charger. So best to include from the outset a series resistance of say 0.4 ohms, with current rating to match. That may well entail ganging together a number of bog standard resistors in parallel or series-parallel.
[on further thought, 25 amps just too high and overheating a big problem. Around 10 amps probably ok and resistor values adjusted to suit. That assumes your copper wire will handle it, which is likely, but be aware of heat when it comes to supporting wire. Wood the better choice than plastic.]

The other thing is to just use what's coming, and limit experiment to checking for *any* appreciable change in compass deflection when it is moved from one hemisphere location to a symmetrical location in other hemisphere.
Sorry about not checking out the above preliminaries first - but at least you now have some better idea of the problems. And when that copper float arrives, first thing is to check with a multimeter that two halves are not electrically isolated, which may be the case if an adhesive union of hemispheres applies!

 

Hmm, I thought Q-reeus said he wanted to test if the field is identical. So only the curl?


@Q-reeus: Nordberg said he used 12V DC but he didn't specify the resistance. Just "q-reeus"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, who's gonna be conducting the actual test?

 

eram - I was preparing below piece and just caught above bit. Well RJBeery is committed, but then I thought you were too. As you will have now realized, there are difficulties owing to weakness of induced field vs earth's. Not insurmountable but realistic expectations need to be in tune with what's attainable at low cost. Here's my piece - maybe you can implement this 'plan B' as independent test:

Another thought. Given the practical issues now apparent in trying to replicate what is likely a fraudulent original experiment, consider the following modified setup:

Nordberg claims the 'field reversal' is principally somehow a consequence of 'expanding/contracting flux area' when the current undergoes radial outflow/inflow from the junctions between wires and sphere, agreed? So really there should be nothing special about a sphere, and in fact the purported effect should be at least as dramatic if a right-circular cylinder shape was used.

Consider then using say a cylinder of equal length and diameter turned out of let's say 1" diameter brass or aluminium - with small center-bores made in each face. Instead of wire attached, use thin rods of brass or aluminium alloy, perhaps brazing or welding rod, with points turned at one end of each that will nicely mate with the center-bores in the cylinder. With rods supported coaxially in a frame, that ensures perfect centering and thus symmetry where needed. Axial clamping force needs to be applied but that could be just a weight pressing down on the top rod. Having a more compact form than copper float, one expects compass(s) would be immersed in stronger fields for same current level. As Nordberg offers no mathematical detail about the supposed transition from right-hand 'curl' in the wire, to left-hand 'curl' in the lower hemisphere, there is an inevitable haziness in all this. At anyrate if 'field reversal' is real, a more compact size should show it up more. But choice here is the experimenter's.

 

Sorry, I don't quite get what you mean.

I thought Nordberg said that it was due to "symmetry". Plus his theory is unreliable.
I am visualizing your idea but why do we need an axial clamping force? Thanks.

 

I meant your post - what I quoted.

His pure assertion of 'symmetry' introduced at around 5:58 min mark is just that - assertion. A proper symmetry argument shows it to be logically absurd. I did that back in the other thread in post #6, remember? It's all nonsense talk in that vid, but he specifically mentions the 'expansion/contraction' etc. connection starting at around the 13:15 min mark.

And this is news? :bugeye:

Well it's a fact of life if you don't apply a decent force between electrical contacts, things like microscopic surface asperities, oxidation, dirt etc will both give a highly variable resistance and can lead to catastrophic heating at the junction - sparks and smoke things like that. Protect your investment!

 

Q-reeus, you make some good observations, thanks for the heads-up. I'm prepared to adjust the experiment as needed, and I had already planned on testing various shapes (cones, etc) to observe the supposed effect as it relates to flux area. My intention was to situate the system such that all compasses pointed north towards the wire; hopefully even small perturbations will be detectable from 3 inches away (since the copper sphere is 5 inch diameter).

 

No problem, though I should have checked it out early on, but here we are.

Fair enough.

Yes, that's the way to arrange it for maximum chance of seeing any fabulous waver in the needle reading.

 

Q-reeus I wonder if you saw my response to this in the other thread:

 

Sorry old chap but I disagree here and the following may leave you down in the mouth.

In his vid, from around the 5:30 mark to 6:20, we are told in no uncertain terms the opposed field 'curls' in top vs bottom hemispheres is a necessary symmetry principle that nature just has to follow. Really? Well note that we can represent the opposed field circulations by oppositely pointing vectors. Upper one shown at 6:08 mark say points up, the lower one points down. So both point outward. Now invert as I suggested in #6. We still have two vectors both pointing outward as before. But now the current flow is in the opposite direction - down. And this makes any sense!? If current direction changes nothing, we can superimpose. Result - no net current at all but we have these circulating magnetic fields! Of course this is pure baloney and flatly contradicts his own demonstration of changed field direction when changing the current direction - see vid at around 7:50 mark on. Bananas land. But hey this is just imho. Carry on sir, to the likely bitter end.

 

If Nordberg believes that switching the current direction would not flip the "curl" direction then he is indeed being illogical; rather than testing Nordberg's interpretation of things I will be testing the supposed anomaly as I described it:

This hypothesis should be logically sound and testable (although not necessarily reproducible in the lab

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

If this hypothesis were true it seems that there would be a slope representing a rate of flux area increase such that the magnetic field vanishes completely...not quite at the equator as Tach pointed out, but something just shy of it (otherwise the wire would also show no "curl" direction)

The experiment is likely doomed but I still find it a bit exciting.

 

First of all, we shouldn't be arguing over Nordberg's non-existent definitions of symmetry and other things. He didn't define them, so we can't argue at all.


Our aim is to find out whether the lower sphere has a bizarre magnetic field. Nordberg is probably a poor experimenter.

He mentioned strands of wire as something to avoid. We should follow this, as it's according to his experiment and keep things simple at the same time.